<quoted text>1. The cross cultural constraint predates gay couples claiming marriage by quite some time making your point pointless.The statement is a simple fact that you cannot directly refute, hence these games.2. I said the basic essence of marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. You had no logical counter, so you made up a statement (lied) I never made. Again, where did I say marriage wasn't about love?3. Maybe you've heard the term 'survival of the fittest',

"Survival of the fittest" is a tautology because there is no way to measure who is fittest apart from survival.

KiMare wrote:

which is the summation of the four points in the link. Or put simply, no mutation occurs if there is not procreation. There is no procreation by gay couples.4. Point 3; hence gay couples are an evolutionary blunder.

You say you are a monster mutation. Are you an evolutionary blunder? Should you have been aborted?

KiMare wrote:

This is simple logic. Perhaps you might try a direct response to the fact; Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.By the way, here is some of the other elements of marriage distinguished from gay couples;If youbelieve denying marriage to a relationshipwill prevent loveIf youdemand any committed relationshiphas to be called marriageIf youclaim rights and benefits can only be acquiredby a imposition on marriageIf youequate the diversity of two genderswith the redundancy of same gendersIf youdesecrate the sacred tradition of all major religionsand violate the historic practice of every single culture in historyIf youbelieve a fundamental change to the building block of societywill have absolutely no affectIf youthink a law can changethe reality of crucial distinctions in relationshipsIf youpretend duplicating sexualityis the same as blending masculinity and femininityIf youcondemn some children to parents of only one genderand deliberately deny some children one natural parentIf youignore the design of sexual unionto manipulate a harmful actIf youviolate evolution's law of reproductionto equate a genetic dead endIf yourisk the healthiest human relationshipto include one of the unhealthiestIf youparallel the sole birthplace of every other relationshipwith one that can reproduce noneIf youdilute all these thingsdown to just 'a committed relationship of two people'Then, and only then, can you equate same-sex unions with marriage.Smile.

This is a if or but I do believe in a contract between two people some things I guess I am old fashion to a degree. A person chose to be together need some kind of financial protection as far as the boyscott thing that is crazy to me. Just get your seperate sector you're setting yourself up for more lawsuits

<quoted text>By calling my questioning 'games' I take it you are simply dismissive on this. Noted.<quoted text>Careful now... asking why you think marriage isn't about love is NOT claiming that you made the statement. Telling me I lied is , well, ironically a lie of yours.<quoted text>Another lie... lots of gays have procreated... and lots of straight people do not....<quoted text>I daresay that is not simple logic (maybe simpleton logic!).'blunders' are what define and drive evolutionary forces. I would contend that humans have a certain frequency of how many will be gay - just like a certain frequency will have curly hair or blue eyes. There is no 'blunder' in what we are... just variation.<quoted text>

1. Only if you are dismissive of the unrefuted answers.

2. So defensive (and avoiding the issue...)! The difference is between asking "do you think" (a question) and stating "why do you think" (an assertion). You lied. Like I said, why are these childish word games necessary for a legitimate cause?

3. Of course lots of gays have procreated. That's not what I said and you know it. Another act of deception. I said gay couples.

Not one single gay couple in ALL of human history has ever procreated.

The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;

A apple tree bearing fruit.A apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.A walnut tree who never bears apples wanting to be a apple tree.A walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.

Even funnier?

The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!

4. You make a simpleton blunder by confusing 'blunder' and 'defect' with 'mutation'. Evolution thrives on mutation. However, a mutation that cannot perpetuate itself is a blunder/defect.

Remember when I schooled you about the fundamental goal of evolution (VIST)?

I = Inheritance: Genetic traits are inherited from parents and are passed on to offspring.

S = Selection: Organisms with traits that are favorable to their survival get to live and pass on their genes to the next generation.

<quoted text>Many do not give a flip about SSM, but are forced to watch as it becomes valid. But for those that give a flip about poly and incest, it must be a slap in the face to watch "equality' being doled out, but only for some....Like "Animal Farm". We are all created equal, but some are more equal than others...

What the? Way ta go! Man oh man.....I actually used the 'Animal Farm' analogy on another thread, "Obama announces support for Gay Marriage. Glad to know I'm not the only one who sees the connection.

KiMare wrote: <quoted text> ...If you believe denying marriage to a relationship will prevent love If you demand any committed relationship has to be called marriage If you claim rights and benefits can only be acquired by a imposition on marriage If you equate the diversity of two genders with the redundancy of same genders If you desecrate the sacred tradition of all major religions and violate the historic practice of every single culture in history If you believe a fundamental change to the building block of society will have absolutely no affect If you think a law can change the reality of crucial distinctions in relationships If you pretend duplicating sexuality is the same as blending masculinity and femininity If you condemn some children to parents of only one gender and deliberately deny some children one natural parent If you ignore the design of sexual union to manipulate a harmful act If you violate evolution's law of reproduction to equate a genetic dead end If you risk the healthiest human relationship to include one of the unhealthiest If you parallel the sole birthplace of every other relationship with one that can reproduce none If you dilute all these things down to just 'a committed relationship of two people' Then, and only then, can you equate same-sex unions with marriage. Smile.

chance47 wrote:

<quoted text>Thanks for the stream of consciousness, I suppose. Here are my responses in order if you are interested:Love exists even in the void of marriage (for straight people and gay)Lots of committed relationships have nothing to do with marriage (or sex)Human rights are innate, not grantedEquate diversity redundancy.. what???Surely, sacred religions arent afraid of the doing of you or I Violate history? Oh yeah, bring back slavery and the dark ages! Yipee!Things dont get better without changeLaws do change this  for instance the marriage tax creditWTF is duplicating sexualitySo children of single parents are also condemned? Really?WTF is design of sexual unionEvolution has no laws. Not one... none at all Pray tell, what is the unhealthiest relationship of all?(hint: its not SSM)Reproduction doesnt require marriage; and marriage does not imply kidsDilute.. the..what, huh?

1. Which makes the gay (pun intended) claim that not having access to marriage stops love.

2. Of course rights are innate. However, certain rights are unique to select people/groups. You avoid answering the assertion; Why discriminate with only gays relationships instead of all relationships?

3. You don't need marriage to acquire any legitimate rights due a gay couple.

4. Another simpleton response... Using a classic analogy, Marriage is the union of Mars and Venus, Gay couples are the collision of Uranus and Uranus.

5. You are not just culturally insensitive, you are culturally stupid. All major religions hold marriage sacred. Calling gay couples married is a sacrilege.

Slavery and intellectual repression have been rejected over and over through history. Gay couples being designated married has never been accepted or legal in any culture from start to finish in all of human history. Simply because they are viewed as a defective distinct relationship.

6. Your answer has nothing to do with my statement and makes an unproved, unlikely assumption.

7. You confuse innate distinctions with external issues. No law can equate a hetero couple with a homo couple.

8. The union of a male and female create a unique relationship. The redumbancy of a single gender is simply duplication.

9. According to social scientists, severely so. And according to the latest, largest and most scientific study of family types, children in lesbian homes fare even worse!

10. The male and female body are designed for sexual union. Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.

11. Please re-study the fundamentals of evolution, it is not that complicated...

12. You are avoiding the point. Marriage is the healthiest relationship. Gay relationships are 'one of' the most unhealthy.

13. No one except a relationship that is totally desolate is asserting that marriage 'requires' procreation. It is simply expected. Please re-read the apple/walnut analogy again real slowely...

14. Please re-read the entire 'If You'. Then ignore all the distinctions noted and dumb down marriage to 'two people in a relationship'. Which simply means any relationship of two people is supposed to be called marriage. Which by the way, is discriminatory towards three or more people in a relationship...

LIke forced marriages in prison? Yeah, we've already seen just how many of those have occured in Canada. Perhaps you need to rethink, with some intelligence for a change, what those probable consequences might be before banging on about them.

<quoted text>This argument, RIGHT HERE, sounds an awful lot like the one used to benefit the gays:"The Browns present a strong argument that what they do in their home is their business. And the more they argue for privacy and rights to marry whomever they choose, the more it morphs into a parallel argument in favor of same-sex marriage. In fact, if Turley is right when he says that, in this marriage debate, we are truly concerned with liberty and protections for private relations among consenting adults, then the number should not matter any more than sex."...doesn't it ? In fact, if we delete a couple of words..."then the number should not matter any more than sex.", then it is a carbon copy. As is proper. As Frank and I have been saying.Smile. You're the guest star of "Ooops, Guess I F**ked Up Again"....Played nightly on Topix.

Oh no, I am on the right side of history, same sex marriage is legal now, in a growing number of states and countries.

You can cry and whine and pine for the "good old days" all you want, but it isnt going to do you any good, same sex marriage will continue to become legal in more and more states

The topic of this blog is:Judge overturns ban on same sex marriage in California. Everything else is off topic.Of course homosexuals should have equal rights to legal marriage.Everything else is off topic. I have seen both homosexual and heterosexuals display lust, and I have seem both homosexuals and heterosexuals display love. Only a couple should decide if they are in love and want to have the legal right to be married.

<quoted text>Right. Those are you arguments against polygamy. They're stupid.

Not one of those arguments were against it, just pointing out some facts. I am not against it, I just dont care, as I know nothing is going to happen with it for a long long time.

Immoral religious degenerates have made absolutely certain of that.

If you think otherwise then build your case, put it on a ballot, have a vote, send it to the Supreme Court, but dont be asking me for a donation because I could not care less. I already know the outcome of your efforts.

<quoted text>i agree and just like the boy scouts, it will be a matter of time when Churches will be sued that refuse a homosexual marriage.

Wrong, a church is a private little club, they can refuse to marry people with blue eyes, they can refuse to marry someone because they are a republican.

This is not about some church or other, this is about legal marriage, which requires no church at all, no mention of any "holy books" or beliefs and can take place in your kitchen if you want it to with someone with the right paperwork and authorized by the state to do so.( I know, I have been to one of those )

Also, who is defending the rights of churches that WANT to preform same sex marriages and are being denied the right to do so? There are tens of thousands of those as well.

<quoted text>Not one of those arguments were against it, just pointing out some facts. I am not against it, I just dont care, as I know nothing is going to happen with it for a long long time.Immoral religious degenerates have made absolutely certain of that.If you think otherwise then build your case, put it on a ballot, have a vote, send it to the Supreme Court, but dont be asking me for a donation because I could not care less. I already know the outcome of your efforts.

Wow! Imagine if someone posted similar hate, ignorance and bigotry against gay marriage.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.